EARINE BERNARD JACKSON, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE R. A. GREEN, JR., CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND HONORABLE ELZIE S. SANDERS, ACTING CIRCUIT JUDGE, IN AND FOR BRADFORD COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jackson, a prison inmate charged with battery of a law enforcement officer, sought a writ of prohibition challenging the trial court's denial of his discharge motion based on speedy trial violations. The court held that the 1980 amendments to Florida's speedy trial rules, which shortened the deadline from one year to 180 days, do not apply retroactively to charges arising before the amendments' effective date.
The 1980 amendments to Florida's speedy trial rules do not apply retroactively to Jackson's case because the operative event triggering the speedy trial clock—taking him into custody—occurred before the amendments' January 1, 1981 effective date, and the amendments contained no express provision for retroactive application.
[1] Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure generally have prospective effect only, unless expressly provided otherwise.
[2] Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure altering speedy trial time for prisoners do not apply to offenses committed before the effective date of the amendme…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Florida rules of court have prospective effect only, unless expressly provided otherwise.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that procedural rule amendments do not apply retroactively unless the court expressly states otherwise.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was taken into custody on October 19, 1980, while an inmate at Florida State Prison for battery of a law enforcement officer. He was charged b…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactive Application Of Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
[*554] PER CURIAM.
This original proceeding in prohibition results from a denial of petitioner’s motion for discharge alleging a violation of the speedy trial rule. We find that the trial court correctly denied petitioner’s motion for discharge and we deny the petition for writ of prohibition.
The issue is whether a prisoner in Florida who allegedly committed the crime of battery of a law enforcement officer before January 1, 1981 must be brought to trial within 180 days of arrest or within one year of arrest, when no demand for a speedy trial has been made. This issue arises because the Florida Supreme Court has amended the 180 day speedy trial time, without demand, to apply to every person charged with a felony including prisoners in Florida. See The Florida Bar. In Re Rules of Criminal Procedure, 389 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1980). Compare current Rule 3.191(a)(1), Fla.R.Crim.P. with former Rule 3.191(b)(1), Fla.R.Crim.P.
On October 19, 1980, while an inmate at Florida State Prison, petitioner was taken into custody at the prison for battery of a law enforcement officer.
On March 18, 1981 petitioner was charged by information with the aforementioned crime. Petitioner's motion for discharge, filed May 28, 1981, was denied by Judge Green in a written order dated June 8, 1981. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of prohibition in this Court alleging that the 1980 amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure apply to petitioner such that the State should have brought him to trial within 180 days of arrest.
Florida rules of court have prospective effect only, unless expressly provided otherwise. See Poyntz v. Reynolds, 37 Fla. 533, 19 So. 649 (1896).
In the 1980 amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court stated that except for the rules relating to the mental competency of the defendant, “[a]ll other rules shall take effect on January 1, 1981, at 12:01 A.M., and govern all proceedings within their scope.” The Florida Bar. In Re Rules of Criminal Procedure, 389 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1980).
The 1980 amendments altering the speedy trial time are not expressly retroactive. The operative event in the instant case, which began the running of the speedy trial time, was the taking of petitioner into custody. This event occurred prior to the effective date of the 1980 amendments to the speedy trial time.
We find that the 1980 amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure altering the speedy trial time, without demand, for a Florida prisoner do not apply to the instant cause. Accordingly, our order of June 11, 1981, directing respondent to show cause why the relief requested by petitioner should not be granted, is discharged and the Writ of Prohibition is DENIED.
MILLS, ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iqbal Zabrani v. The Honorable Edward D. Cowart, 502 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…s to be applied. See Hood v. State, 415 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Arnold v. State, 429 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Holmes v. Leffler, 411 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 419 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1982); Jackson v. Green, 402 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). State v. Green, 473 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), which was followed in McKnight, held that the key factor was “[t]he event which began the running of speedy trial time[,] ... the taking of defendant into custody on June…
-
Holmes v. The Honorable Kenneth M. Leffler, 411 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…September 8, 1980. This event occurred prior to the effective date (January 1, 1981) of the 1980 amendment to the speedy trial time. “Florida Rules of Court have prospective effect [*892] only, unless expressly provided otherwise.” Jackson v. Green, 402 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The 1980 amendments to the speedy trial rule are not expressly retroactive. Thus, the issue is whether Petitioner falls within the definition of a prisoner in Florida and whether he must be brought to trial within 180 days of ar…
-
Boston v. State, 411 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…67). AFFIRMED. MILLS and SHAW, JJ., concur. . We have considered and rejected appellant’s ex post facto argument, based on the principles stated in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). Further, Jackson v. Green, 402 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), does not deal with the same issue as presented here.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Fla. Bar. in re Rules of Crim. Procedure, 389 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1980)
- Nat Poyntz v. Reynolds, 37 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1896)